Old lady dies (see other post)

[Bryn]

This needs to be shared.

[Flosshilde]

a bi-coloured swede!

Those Swedes & their liberated ways - they'll destroy society (oh, I forgot - there's no such thing )

[Flosshilde]

This needs to be shared.

[MrGongGong]

You

are

not

alone!

What on earth has MJ got to do with the price of fish ?

[Serial_Apologist]

I whole-heartedly concur.

Oh no - divide and concur!

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Julien Sore

I accept your point (#200), the thread did manage, after about 40 pages of rubbish, to raise some reasonable points, yours included (I did, in fact say: "most of the thread"). However, what had gone before has to entirely colour your view of the thread. I don't recall you posting much before then, and I certainly didn't.

And I recall your post which made three points, was tempted to reply to most, but only responded to the social housing point (I did not ignore it as you allege). But I said nothing to give the impression that I was in anyway breezily complacent about private rental, and I still don't agree with ff's rebuttal: there is nothing per se wrong with private rental for provision of social housing provided it's well regulated. If local government cannot manage to regulate such a private market then how on earth do you or ff imagine the public sector will be able to manage provision of social housing?

It is not unfair of me to raise a point which I consider to be entirely true: the behaviour of many of the board members was shocking and unacceptable. The proof of that is that the thread has been withdrawn.

[Nick Armstrong]

What on earth has MJ got to do with the price of fish ?

MJ?

[Flosshilde]

Perhaps it's time for another picture of Dougal, this time in his favourite sleeping position -

[Richard Barrett]

While there is nothing to stop members leaving and then re-joining the forum, to do so under a new identity suggests that either they originally left under a cloud, or were in some way ashamed of their previous incarnation(s).

It suggests no such thing as far as I'm concerned.

[Anna]

Julien Sorel
I accept your point (#200), the thread did manage, after about 40 pages of rubbish, to raise some reasonable points, yours included (I did, in fact say: "most of the thread"). However, what had gone before has to entirely colour your view of the thread. I don't recall you posting much before then, and I certainly didn't.

I'm sorry, and believe me, I have no wish to rush to the defence of Mr. Sorel, but he (Mr. Sorel) has always stuck to his principles and nothing will sway him from those and nothing which had gone before coloured his view. As to remembering him posting before, well I certainly do.
Oh Pish, and Tush! Why do people keep on trying to resurrect quarrels?

[Richard Barrett]

the behaviour of many of the board members was shocking

I agree with this, although I suspect that you and I might well differ as to which bored members' contributions might fall into that category. What the withdrawal of the thread "proves" is that the administrator's opinion was that it should be. No more than that. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[ahinton]

I said nothing to give the impression that I was in anyway breezily complacent about private rental, and I still don't agree with ff's rebuttal: there is nothing per se wrong with private rental for provision of social housing provided it's well regulated. If local government cannot manage to regulate such a private market then how on earth do you or ff imagine the public sector will be able to manage provision of social housing?

You did indeed mention regulation of the rented housing market and I recall responding to the effect that undue dependency upon regulation can be a dangerous thing; this is partly because the manner and matter of a regulatory framework can often prove to be fraught with practical problems and partly because there is in any case no guarantee that those charged with policing / monitoring / upholding any particular regulatory régime can be trusted to make a good or even adequate job of doing so, the example of the "regulation" of the financial services industry being perhaps the most glaring example of these factors (remember LAUTRO, then FIMBRA, then PIA, then FSA and now PRA/FCA? - to say nothing of the grave consequences of the negative fallout of the most recent one, particularly in the banking regulation failures).

I also recall mentioning that the social housing market is not in any case an especially attractive one for private landlords to take on, just as has rightly been pointed out elsewhere that certain sectors of NHS operation are not an especially attractive prospect for private firms to assume. Why? Because there's scant profit to be made out of renting out social housing (especially if it is sufficiently tightly and reliably regulated to ensure due protection of tenants' rights and interests, as you suggest it should be), just as there's ditto for running mental health, A&E and certain other healthcare services currently run by NHS.

You may disagree with all of some of this, but I think it not unreasonable to point it out.

[Boilk]

Where there is dischord, may we bring harmony?...

[ahinton]

While there is nothing to stop members leaving and then re-joining the forum, to do so under a new identity suggests that either they originally left under a cloud, or were in some way ashamed of their previous incarnation(s).

On what grounds doe it do this? - and what makes you so certain that it is true in all cases? I have never used an alias on a forum and indeed have only ever used one forum ID for all fora to which I have ever signed up, but that's my decision and I have no reason to expect, nor indeed do i expect, anyone else to follow my example; why should they?

I make no inferences

I'm sorry if I misunderstand your remark, but "to do so under a new identity suggests that either they originally left under a cloud, or were in some way ashamed of their previous incarnation(s)" certainly reads to me like an inference at the very least!

[ahinton]

I agree with this, although I suspect that you and I might well differ as to which bored members' contributions might fall into that category. What the withdrawal of the thread "proves" is that the administrator's opinion was that it should be. No more than that.

Exactly. I don't even see how it could be read otherwise.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

It isn't. That some people nevertheless appear to want to convey the impression that they don't "understand" it suggests to me that they would prefer not to do so.